Y'all are welcome to both the snow and the cold temps, but please keep them on your side of the Blue Ridge. Over here, it's supposed to be in the low 70's tomorrow. (That's not a record for local early January... in '50 there was a 79* day.) Elias - I have woods hyacinths that are about bloom; now instead of May. Interestingly, neither the crocus nor the daffies have done more than poke up 2 and 3" stems. Relax, Jaz. Around here those daffies would be in crowded company as it's normal for them to have green stems and buds from early February on. Snow doesn't seem to bother them, although it can look a bit strange to see a bed of daffies with their golden trumpets resting on top of 8 inches of snow. BTW, if you do pick frozen daffies, let them thaw out in the fridge for several hours before shocking them with the house's warmth.

Hi Chelone, What's with the listing of your magazines? Was that meant for this thread? Or are you saying that all of those are your cause for belief that "deregulation in banking has encouraged the shocking lending practices that have lead to the present circumstance."? I'm sorry I screwed your name up. I'm usually pretty good about that, and historicially I've been "on the money" with your's, I think. No worries, no offense taken (the mix-up, as I stated, is so extremely common outside of written communications that I'm virtually never offended by it... no even when an offender points out in hindsight that she *MEANT* it to be offensive at the time ;~) I'm either thick-skinned, or thick-skulled (depending who you ask) that way. My own philosophy about investing (WHEN and how) is very different than your's, Dave (sorry again!). I believe in retiring debts efficiently before the term. What do you believe in when the term is too short to efficiently eliminate the leverage, in respect to a person's actual life (not the arbitrarily set term of the loan)? My own portfolio has seen a downturn, but not a terribly precipitous one, frankly. Mostly, I think, because I have paid my major debts in full and now have the option of directing current contributions (that would have be directed to debt/interest payments) to longer term investments. If you look at a comparison of a pre-funded sum growing on a compounding basis (even minus the interest charges considered if the funds were from leverage,) versus a "drip-funded" scheme of the same monthly payment... you'll apparently be quite surprised at how dangerous the "eliminate the leverage, then drip the investment" strategy actually is. I am reasonably certain you will find fault with it all. I'm OK with that. I know that the properties I own are owned "free and clear". I know also that my portfolio is reasonably (within my "risk toleranace") conservative relative to the times frames I have in mind. I'm glad to know you are blissful. ;~) "Broadbrush" is workin' just fine for me. I'll keep that in mind when I see future claims or statements, and pull in the reigns of my accuracy expectations. Here's to your blissful seasons; that you are confronted by no surprises you weren't anticipating, and that you remain safe without having to be aware! Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner

A large part of the problem has arien frm the 'electronic recording' of note. Instead of actually shuffling paper, an electronic database is used to 'record' ownership of the notes. This was done to speed yup sale of the notes, and avoid the recording fees jurisdictions require to actually record the ownership of the note at the court house. There have been hints of problems dating back a couple years. Dutsche Bank created a shell company to securitize notes and issue bonds backed by the notes. They then wanted to save even more money and rolled the shell company into Dutsche Bank. When they then tried to foreclose on some defaulted notes, the court required them to prove they actually owned the notes. All they had was ownership of the bonds, the notes were still in the name of the dissolved shell company. It would be like you purchasing a Fannie Bond, and then claiming the right to foreclose a note 'included' in the bond. You own a bond from Fannie, NOT the underlying notes. Fannie owns the notes, and they are the one who must foreclose. The electronic recording database is a private company, set up just to make buying and selling of the notes faster and less expensive. Some courts have allowed the company status as the 'owner' of the notes, others have taken issue. For may years the whole thing was handled on paper. Each seller added a transfer of the note ownership to the paper file, and then had the new ownership recorded at the appropriate court. This 'hampered' the secondary market, so the recording database was created. At least some of the title insurance companies have had some heartburn with the lack of public record. Only the actual owner of a note can release the note (or someone they directly designate like a settlement company for sales). With ownership of the note not clearly and publicly recorded, how is anyone to judge if the release on full payment is valid? Just as with a quit claim deed, you can only convey your actual interest in a property. A quit claim for the Empire State building I might give you conveys nothing, since I have no interest in the Empire State building. In the name of faster they have managed to cause clouds on titles that may take some time to unwind, and in the meantime owners who have defaulted will escape foreclosure until the courts are satisfied with clear ownership of the notes (and not simply a bond backed by the note).

Parent, I'm sorry to shock you. I have many friends who went to Ivy League schools on full scholarship and one who is currently attending an ILS on full scholarship (and none of them were sports based, all academic) and they went to public schools. Not top-notch public schools either. A family friend's son got into a prestigious college after going to the high school in our town. He just was awarded 10,000.00 of grant money on top of his other aid. If you're smart, you're smart enough to get into ILS regardless of high school attended. When I went to college and got my first degree I was beat out for Valedictorian by a girl from the area I grew up in... she went to one of the worst ranked high schools in the area and I went to college-prep high school. She beat me, and all of the big-city kids. That's what the SAT's are for. To wipe out all of the "an A in one school is of lower value than the B in another school" nonsense. It's the great equalizer. (except if you are of a minority and don't understand that it's racially/class biased) @ Smashly: Exactly. PO1: "What is one to do with the other, how is it even his business?" Its his business because she A) was given all marital assets and B) racked up so much debt DH spent nearly 7 years paying it off and nearly ruined his credit (and, it looks like, ruined hers). ItÂs his business because by asking him to co-sign a loan; rather than discussing it with him and coming to a decision they both feel comfortable with; she commits to something she canÂt deliver and promises SD that she can go "if daddy says yes" so that Dad is a bad guy if he says no. If she were living within her means we might be more inclined to jump in the pool with her. But sheÂs already tried to drown him once. Once bitten, twice shy and all that. "Honestly I don't have much respect for NCPs who do little yet complain a lot." Me neither. I hope you arenÂt assuming my DH does little and complains a lot. He pays child support that was based on his income years ago (nearly double what it would be if it were based on current income), has not gone back to court to get revision even though she does not abide by the visitation decree. We ask for her for every school vacation, to see her on weekends, etc. Mom always has things planned, camps planned, etc. Even if Mom canÂt be with her, she doesnÂt want us with her either. As Mattie said; itÂs not ok to do "what you think is best for the child" and completely disregard what the other parent thinks or worse, not even ask their opinion before committing, and then expect the other parent to pay for your decision. Dad can help with educational decisions. He wasnÂt given a choice, and heÂs not "rolling his eyes". If one parent truly "knows the child better" and that makes it right for that parent to make all the decisions, why aren't stay at home parents given free reign over their children's lives? Why even consult with the parent who has to travel for work or works 80 hours a week? Love, thatÂs exactly it. Many private schools are about prestige rather than education. I do think that is a lot of money for elementary school but if you have it or have the gift of someone footing the bill, by all means, take every advantage!! I paid over $8,000.00 for my ddÂs pre-school and kindergarten. We could afford it. It was the best one I could find. Right now I would put DD into private school if there were one nearby that I thought was worth it. I made the decision, (along with DDÂs birth father!) to not be in the car for 4 hours a day. But her school is two blocks away, I can walk to pick her up, everyone is so friendly and kind and interested in her success. We supplement her education in other ways. IMO, itÂs not about public or private. ItÂs about what is the right fit for the child and for the family. And that can change year to year. When BM is going on vacations with SD during the times in which we should be getting her (but IÂve booked us to Aruba over Christmas!!!) and then putting her in expensive camps over the summer (can you pay for half?) when weÂd LOVE to have herÂ..but now she canÂt visit because sheÂs booked up, and doesnÂt want to because "daddy, itÂs horse camp!!"Â well. I don't care how smart the kid is, I'm not going to take out a second mortgage to pay for her 100,000.00 elementary education.